FOR or BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins, (Acts 2:38)

[BillyBob65]

I agree. I came across this in a concordance:

""For" (as used in Ac 2:38 "for the forgiveness ") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery," "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works."

Yes that is so it could also mean in order to receive so the best way to find out just how it was intended is to search the word to see if it gives any insight to which way it was used and I know the bible will make that clear for us we Just have to accept it even if it doesn't fit our bias view.

 

[CrowCross]

Yes that is so it could also mean in order to receive so the best way to find out just how it was intended is to search the word to see if it gives any insight to which way it was used and I know the bible will make that clear for us we Just have to accept it even if it doesn't fit our bias view.

It appears it fits your biased view....considering there are many examples of where salvation is mentioned and water baptism isn't.
It appears you're sect introduced the bias.

 

[BillyBob65]

It appears it fits your biased view....considering there are many examples of where salvation is mentioned and water baptism isn't.
It appears you're sect introduced the bias.

Show me where that is true using Acts of the Apostles because before Acts 2 it does not apply because it's all pointing to Acts 2 and all the letters to the churches after Acts is to the saved not dealing with how to get saved but to the already saved

 

[CrowCross]

Show me where that is true using Acts of the Apostles because before Acts 2 it does not apply because it's all pointing to Acts 2 and all the letters to the churches after Acts is to the saved not dealing with how to get saved but to the already saved

I'v already showed you where in Acts 2 Peter said...21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’....with like John 3:16 and other verses baptism isn't even mentioned.

baptism is for those who are already saved.

 

[BillyBob65]

I'v already showed you where in Acts 2 Peter said...21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’....with like John 3:16 and other verses baptism isn't even mentioned.

baptism is for those who are already saved.

Let's be fair in Acts 2 baptism is mentioned even commanded do you misunderstood that chapter

John 3:16 is before God starts adding to the church in Acts 2 therefore it's pointing to the acts of the coming kingdom and also just a few verses above it does imply one has to be born again which ties it to Acts 2

Try again using the conversions in Acts

 

[BillyBob65]

One more thought looking at Acts 22:16 it seems that Paul relates calling on the name of the Lord with being done through baptism

 

[CrowCross]

Let's be fair in Acts 2 baptism is mentioned even commanded do you misunderstood that chapter

John 3:16 is before God starts adding to the church in Acts 2 therefore it's pointing to the acts of the coming kingdom and also just a few verses above it does imply one has to be born again which ties it to Acts 2

Try again using the conversions in Acts

Deleted. Mod Hat: It is disrespectful to say it that way, even if the wording is directed at the post and not the person. (It would be better to say, "It makes no sense to me", than, "It makes no sense", without even any explanation in your post.)

 

[CrowCross]

One more thought looking at Acts 22:16 it seems that Paul relates calling on the name of the Lord with being done through baptism

Are you saying...salvation is not by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, but rather by works such as baptism?

 

[BillyBob65]

Are you saying...salvation is not by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, but rather by works such as baptism?

What I am asking is for you to point out in the book of Acts where a conversion is mentioned that doesn't mention baptism.

You gave Acts 2 but that chapter does command one to be baptized in Christ name

You said that calling on the name of the Lord excluded the command to be baptized so I showed you a parallel verse showing that the Bible (Paul spoke what the spirit gave him to say) said calling on the name of the Lord was through baptism in Acts 22:16.

 

[David Lamb]

What I am asking is for you to point out in the book of Acts where a conversion is mentioned that doesn't mention baptism.

You gave Acts 2 but that chapter does command one to be baptized in Christ name

You said that calling on the name of the Lord excluded the command to be baptized so I showed you a parallel verse showing that the Bible (Paul spoke what the spirit gave him to say) said calling on the name of the Lord was through baptism in Acts 22:16.

Well, Paul told the Philippian jailer to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. It was only after they had believed that the jailer and his household were baptized:

“And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:33-34 NKJV)

 

[Paul]

I agree with this reasoning:
Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol.

If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together

It is noted almost all if not all english translation's use "for"
The NET bible has extensive reasoning notes on this usage.
Bible Gateway passage: Acts 2:38 - New English Translation

I was baptized as an infant. My witness is that I did not receive the inward gift of the Spirit at that time but later when I asked for that gift as one calling on the Lord. However as far back as my memory goes I have believed in and loved the Lord Jesus.

Jesus informed His disciples prior to the pouring out of the Spirit that the world didn't know Him because they neither sees Him nor hears Him, but they knew Him because He was with them and would be in them. I too believe the Spirit was with me before it was in me. Because I knew with all my heart that Jesus lives before that inward gift. Not just believed but knew with absolute certainty.

Jesus=>Those who belong to God hear what God says.

 

[BillyBob65]

Well, Paul told the Philippian jailer to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. It was only after they had believed that the jailer and his household were baptized:

“And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:33-34 NKJV)

Yes have you ever heard of anyone being baptized with out believing? Baptism is the expected response to the gospel call. When one comes to belief then and only then are they able to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin as seen in Acts 2. and just as in Acts 2 these heard the gospel and responded to the call with baptism in Christ name for the remission of sin just as in Acts 2 connect the dots it is spelled out so you can read and have faith in what is being taught.

Ask yourself a serious question and be honest with your answer. If baptism in Christ name is not for the remission of sin and the receiving of the holy ghost as it clearly says in Acts 2:38 then why was it important to get everyone baptized in Christ name?

 

[Arial]

Ask yourself a serious question and be honest with your answer. If baptism in Christ name is not for the remission of sin and the receiving of the holy ghost as it clearly says in Acts 2:38 then why was it important to get everyone baptized in Christ name?

Ask yourself this question.

Since circumcision did nothing in actuality in the Old Covenant, why was it important that the males be circumcised?

Before you answer, consider the correlation the Bible itself makes between Old Covenant circumcision and New Covenant baptism.

I leave you with this passafe to consider, Geb 17:10 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

 

[BillyBob65]

Yes circumcision of the foreskin in the Old testament was the way they entered into the Old testament covenant in the New testament we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to enter into the New testament covenant so yes there is a connection there of the similarity both of them is the way you enter into the covenants

 

[Arial]

Yes circumcision of the foreskin in the Old testament was the way they entered into the Old testament covenant in the New testament we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to enter into the New testament covenant so yes there is a connection there of the similarity both of them is the way you enter into the covenants

Incorrect. The verse I gave clearly says it was a sign they were in the covenant. God makes covenant with people. People do not make covenant with God. It was not how they entered into the covenant; it was the sign of the covenant. Same with baptism in the new covenant.